 | | | |
|
|
|
PHYSICA C: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND ITS APPLICATIONS
| |
| | |
|
|
Peer Review Policy Physica C
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the local editorial office dealing with the proceedings.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptionally good manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to two experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed approximately within two weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications employs single blind review, in which the reviewers remain anonymous for the author throughout the process.
How the reviewer is selected
Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We require suggestions of reviewers from the author, though these recommendations are not necessarily used.
Review reports
The reviewer is asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly cites earlier previous relevant work
Language correction is not part of the peer review process but reviewers may, is they so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. However, the typical time for Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications is currently eight to ten weeks. Should the review reports contradict one another or when the one reviewer's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, the decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision is made on the basis of only one review report. The Editor's decision then will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewer(s), which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial reviewer(s) within five days after receipt. Reviewer(s) may then request another revision of a manuscript.
Final Decision
The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with recommendations made by the reviewer(s), and may include verbatim comments by the reviewer(s).
Editor's Decision is final
The reviewer(s) advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a reviewer for Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications
The benefits of reviewing for Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications include the opportunity to read and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. If you are not currently a reviewer for Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications, but would like to be added to be considered as a reviewer, please contact one of the Editors (see contact details at  http://www.elsevier.com/locate/physc).
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
|
